Rules of the Holy Apostles and Ecumenical Councils with interpretations

See our website: Church law: canons (rules) About the rules of the Orthodox Church About the rules of the holy Apostles On the rules of ecumenical councils On the rules of Local Councils About additional rules Rule 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 Rules of the Ecumenical Councils Rules of the 1st Ecumenical Council, Nicaea Rule 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Rules of the 2nd Ecumenical Council, Constantinople Rules of the 3rd Ecumenical Council, Ephesus Rule 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Epistle of the same Council to the Holy Council of Pamphylia on Eustace Rules of the 4th Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon Rule 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Rules of the 6th Ecumenical Council, Trullo (otherwise the Fifth-Sixth Council) Rule 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 Rules of the 7th Ecumenical Council, Nicaea Rule 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 “The explanation of Your words enlightens and instructs the unskilled,” says the prophet and divine David to God; and the decrees of the divine Apostles and Father are quite rightly called God’s words, for they wrote those decrees, being enlightened by the divine spirit.” This is how John Zonara begins his interpretations of the rules. Such an explanation of these divine words, or holy rules (canons), was the task of all interpreters of all centuries. Not everything is clear in every rule, not all rules are so clearly stated that anyone, after reading a known rule, can immediately understand its true meaning. This depends on the text of the rules themselves, which were published in different places and over several centuries, which is why they could not be set out all as they could have been if they had appeared in one place and at one time, when, therefore, based on the language and historical characteristics of one time and one place, their true meaning could be fully understood. Thus, the interpretation of the rules was caused in the church, so to speak, by necessity, and the need for these interpretations was felt in exactly the same way as in the interpretations of the Holy Scriptures. There weren't many interpreters of the rules. During the first eleven centuries, strictly speaking, there was none. The first interpreter appears at the beginning of the 12th century - this is John Zonara, a monk, and before that the great Drungarian of the Vigla, i.e. chief of the palace guard and at the same time vice-chairman of the imperial tribunal and secretary of state. We have seen how Zonara begins his interpretations, and then in the preface he says that his goal is to make the holy rules intelligible and explain their meaning, so that everyone is able to penetrate into the depth of the holy rules and all the canonical definitions are clear to everyone; That is why he took the trouble to present in a concise form the interpretation of each rule. And Zonara performed this so well that to this day no one has surpassed him in this, and Balsamon could rightfully call him o υπερφυέστατος (i.e., most excellent) in interpreting the rules. In the same 12th century, Alexei Aristinus, a deacon and great steward of the patriarchal church in Constantinople, wrote an interpretation of the rules. He interpreted the abbreviated text (Synopsis) of the rules, but in such a way that under the abbreviated text he put a paraphrase of the full text, and if the abbreviated text of the rules was understandable, he left them without interpretation, noting only that “the rule is clear.” In the second half of the same 12th century, a third interpreter, Theodore Balsamon, appeared, first Chartophylax of the Patriarchal Church of Constantinople, then (from 1193) Patriarch of Antioch. Balsamon actually set himself the task of bringing into agreement the prescriptions of the holy rules with the provisions of state Greco-Roman legislation and in this regard he carried out his work independently; and in the interpretation of the rules themselves, he follows Zonara in everything, in some places he only complements Zonara’s interpretations, citing to clarify one or another canonical definition of the decision of the Patriarchal Synod of Constantinople. The interpretations of the above three interpreters (Zonar, Aristinus and Balsamon) are printed in the original Greek text in volumes II, III and IV τε άγιων καί πανευφήμων Αποστόλων καί των ιερών οικουμενικών καί ? Α. ' Ράλλη καί Μ . (A θήνησιν, 1852–59, τομ Ι -V Ι), and the Greek text with the Latin translation in Συνοδικον sive Pandectae canonum ss. Apostolorum et Conciliorum ab ecclesia graeca receptorum, nec non canonicarum ss. Patrum epistolarum, – Guil. Beveregius recensuit (Oxonii, 1672). In the Russian translation, these interpretations were published in the publication of the Moscow Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment “Rules of St. Apostle, St. Ecumenical and Local Councils and St. father with interpretations" (Moscow, I, 1876; II. 1880–1 and III, 1884). In addition to the interpretations of the named main Greek interpreters, there are also interpretations of individuals in Greek from the Middle Ages. But these interpretations are very brief, they do not cover all the rules, but only certain ones, and in comparison with the interpretations of Zonar they lose meaning and importance. Of those who wrote such brief interpretations, the main ones related to the named era are the following four. The first in time is John, Bishop of Cythra (επίσκοπος Κίτρου), from the last years of the 12th century, known for his canonical responses to Archbishop Constantine Cabasiles. John's interpretations are found under separate rules in the canonical collection of K. Armenopouls. Another is Matthew Vlastari, a monk, in his Alphabetical Syntagma, compiled in 1335 (originally printed in the VI volume of the Athenian Syntagma, in Greek with a Latin translation in the II volume of the Beveregian Synodikon, and in the Russian translation in the edition of N. Ilyinsky, Simferopol, 1892), interpreted almost all the rules, following throughout the Zonar and Balsamon and adding very few comments of my own. The third interpreter is the Patriarch of Constantinople Philotheus († 1376), whose interpretations of individual rules are in the Armenopoonian canonical collection. And finally - Constantine Armenopulus († 1383), prefect of Thessalonica and nomophilax. Armenopoul's interpretations of individual rules are in his canonical collection, in which, as we said, there are also interpretations of John of Cytra and Patriarch Philotheus. This collection of Armenopoulus is printed in volume 1 of Juris graeco-romani tam canonici quam civilis ed. Johannis Leunclavii Amelburni (Francofurti, 1596). There are no other better interpretations in Greek before 1798. And this year, the monk Christopher published in Constantinople, with the blessing of Patriarch Neophytos, one canonical collection, which contains many rather independent interpretations of the rules. According to the interpretations of Christopher, the interpretations in the publication are mainly compiled. αποστολικής των ορθοδόξων εκκλησίας, prepared for printing by two monks Agapius and Nicodemus, who printed it for the first time in Leipzig in 1800. And in the West there was no shortage of interpretations of the rules of the Orthodox Church. It is known that, as a result of religious confusion in the West in the 16th century, Western theologians began to desire to become more familiar with the written monuments of the Greek Church, and they began to publish canonical collections of the Eastern Church and, in general, the sources of law of this Church, either in the Greek text, or in the Latin translation, or in parallel, the Greek text and the Latin translation. In many of these Western publications, they did not limit themselves to simply preparing for publication the canonical sources of the Eastern Church, but also wrote critical notes on the sources, and, in particular, in some publications we find quite detailed interpretations of the rules of the Eastern Church, compiled generally in accordance with the religious principle that one or another publisher adhered to. For an Orthodox canonist, these Western interpretations can be of sufficient importance, especially some of them, because they clarify many issues from Orthodox canon law that were not previously developed at all, and then in many of these interpretations the historical origin and development of certain very important canonical institutions is reported. It goes without saying that an Orthodox canonist, reading these Western interpretations, should not for a moment forget the religious principle (Ultramontanian, Gallican, Anglican, etc.) of this or that author, and in accordance with this, comparing at the same time what this or that Western author says with the canonical teaching of the Orthodox Church, he should also draw his own conclusion about a certain Western interpretation. The first Westerner to interpret Eastern canonical sources and publish his work was the Augustinian scholar Christianus Lupus († 1681). Its interpretations are found in the publication Synodorum generalium ac provincialium decreta et canones, scholiis, notis ac historica actorum dissertatione illustrati (Lovanii, 1665). This work contains rich canonical material, but the presentation is so confusing that sometimes it is difficult to understand what the author wants to say and whether in a certain place he is pursuing the same or the opposite idea. Another is the Oratorian Joannes Cabassutius († 1685) in his work: Notitia conciliorum sanctae ecclesiae, in qua elucidantur exactissime tum sacri canones, tum veteres novique ecclesiae ritus, tum praecipue partes eccles. historiae (Lugduni, 1667, and later this work was supplemented and published with a more extensive title, Paris, 1838). This author's interpretations are brief and superficial, and less than exactissima, as he himself calls them. An example would be the interpretation of the 6 rights. First Ecumenical Council, to which we refer in the appropriate place in our book. Of the Western ones who interpreted the rules of the Eastern Church, the most important for the Orthodox canonist is Guil. Beveregius (English Beveridge, or from Latin Beveregius), an Anglican priest, and then an Asaphic bishop (E 1708). In his Σονοδιχόν or Pandectae, the full title of which we have given above, Beveregius wrote learned interpretations not only of all the rules, but also of many other passages from the interpretations of Greek interpreters. Beveregius's interpretations are precious for Orthodox canon law. Likewise precious are the interpretations of the rules compiled by Zeger Bernardus Van Espen († 1728), a French priest and one of the most learned canonists, whose glory still lives on, but who was not pleasing to Rome and therefore many of his works were included in the Index and he himself, in the 82nd year of his life, fell suspensio a divinis. Its interpretations are published in a separate book: Cotmeotarius in canones et decreta juris veteris ac novi (Coloniae Agrippinae, 1755). From the 19th century, we know the following interpreters of the rules of the Orthodox Church: 1) in Theologische Quartalschrift, Tubingen, 1820 et seq., an unknown author (apparently Prof. Herbst, one of the publishers of the named magazine), who wrote mostly brief interpretations (Anmerkungen) of our rules, then 2) S. J. von Hefele († 1893), bishop Rottenburg, in his Op. Conciliengeschichte, and finally 3) J. B. Pitra (E 1892), cardinal, in the publication Juris ecclesiastici graecorum historia et monumenta (Romae, t. I, 1864, t. II, 1868). Among the Slavs, Archimandrite John (Vladimir S. Sokolov, since 1866 Bishop of Smolensk, † 1869) has great merit in interpreting the rules. His work “Experience of a course in church jurisprudence,” vol. I – II (St. Petersburg 1851), which contains interpretations of the rules, rightly awarded its author the degree of Doctor of Theology. In his interpretations, Archimandrite. John generally tries to explain the reason that prompted the publication of a well-known rule, the position of the question constituting the essence of the rule in the past, its exact meaning and its relationship to other parallel rules, further - what evidence from patristic writing confirms the prescription of the rule, what legalizations of Greco-Roman legislation existed or which were later issued in the sense of this or that rule, how medieval interpreters interpreted this rule, what canonical dogma the rule establishes, etc. Archimandrite mainly draws attention to this. John when interpreting each of the most important rules. And he completed his task excellently. For these interpretations and for many other scientific works on Orthodox canon law, the author of this book called Archimandrite. John the father of the new science of Orthodox church law. The author said this out of his deep conviction, and he is pleased that Russian science has learned this and now this great Russian canonist is receiving the attention that he fully deserves. There were no interpretations of St. in the Serbian language. rules In the first years of my teaching service at the Zadar Theological Seminary (in Dalmatia), I began to deal with this matter and in 1873 I published the rules of St. The Apostles and the rules of the first four ecumenical councils with brief interpretations. This was only the first attempt on my part. Due to various circumstances, I suspended this case. Five years later (1878) I took it up again and published the same rules with more extensive interpretations. But during this work, I was busy with the history of the first four ecumenical councils and paid more attention to the dogmatic activity of these councils than to the canonical activity, so that almost half of the book published at that time related to dogmatics and only the other half to church law, and thus, against my will, I found myself in someone else’s business. This was the reason why I then suspended further publication of the rules with interpretations. Only fifteen years after that I again took up the same matter, but now with an exclusively canonical task. And now the first complete Serbian edition of the “Rules with Interpretations” appeared. In this complete edition, all the rules that have the meaning of a positive canon in the Orthodox Church are interpreted in more or less detail. Not only the basic rules, but also additional rules are outlined here. All these rules with their interpretations are divided into two books. The first book was published in 1895, and the second followed it in 1896. From the previous incomplete editions, the first complete edition included very few interpretations of the rules, and then with some appropriate changes; the interpretations of all other rules were written again, and for some the author used his previous canonical works. The author studied the interpretations of all those canonists who were mentioned above, and used these interpretations to the extent necessary for his purpose. He meant, like Zonara, that the explanation of God’s words should enlighten and instruct the unskilled - this was the main task of the work. In accordance with this task, prompted by the same thing that motivated all previous best interpreters to explain the holy rules, the author tried to clarify each rule as best and as completely as possible and indicate its true meaning; and in relation to the practical purpose for which interpretations of rules in general are written, he brought to each rule parallel passages that have a close or distant relationship to the subject that this or that rule deals with, so that from a comparison of all the rules related here it was possible to form an accurate concept of this or that canonical institution and thanks to this the positive canonical teaching of the Orthodox Church about this institution was learned. Explaining God's words or holy rules, the author, both in the first and in the present edition, especially sought to personally learn and find out what exactly the holy rules prescribe. And if his work turns out to be useful for others, then this will be a pleasant satisfaction for him. Ep. Nicodemus. Zadr, December 1910 About the rules of the Orthodox Church. Rules (κανόνες) 1 are those written definitions that the legislative power of the church has issued over several centuries and which are still in force in the Orthodox Church, as positive and generally binding laws for each and everyone who is a member of this church. All these definitions or rules are set out in the main canonical collection of the Orthodox Church, which was published in Constantinople in 883 and is known under the name Nomocanon in the XIV titles 2. This collection contains the rules of St. The Apostles, the rules of the Ecumenical Councils, the ten local councils and the rules of the thirteen saints. father. Next to these basic rules, several canonical works of John the Faster, Nicephorus the Confessor, Nicholas the Grammar, Basil the Great, John Chrysostom and Anastasius are also valid as additional rules. All the rules mentioned, both basic and additional, are contained in the Athens Syntagma, published in 1852-59, with the approval of the Patriarchal Synod of Constantinople and the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece 3 . And these rules are as follows. Rules of the Ecumenical Councils: the first of Constantinople, Rules of local councils: Constantinople 394, Constantinople 861 and Constantinople 879 Dionysius of Alexandria, Gregory of Neocaesarea, Timothy of Alexandria, Theophilus of Alexandria, Cyril of Alexandria, Gennady of Constantinople and Tarasius of Constantinople. Canon of John the Faster, Rules of Nikephoros the Confessor, Synodal answers of Nicholas Grammar and Canonical rules of Basil the Great, John Chrysostom and Anastasius. We will translate all these rules (both basic and additional) in translation from the original Greek text according to the Athenian Syntagma and add to them our own interpretations, which will be necessary to understand the true meaning of the rules, and also add to each rule all other parallel rules, so that everyone, when comparing all the rules that speak about the same subject, can form an accurate understanding of what canon law teaches about this subject. But before we begin to set out these rules, it is necessary to say at least briefly about the time of publication of all these rules, who issued them and for what reason. In all canonical collections of the Orthodox Church, the 85 rules of St. are in first place. Apostles 4. The importance and significance of these rules in the universal church for all times was confirmed by the Council of Trullo (691) with its 2nd rule, declaring “so that from now on... the eighty-five rules accepted and approved by the saints and blessed fathers who lived before us, as well as those handed down to us in the name of the holy and glorious Apostles, will remain firm and inviolable” (καί παραδοθένταζ ήμιν ονόματι τών αγίων καί ενδόξων Ἁποστόλων ). Having proclaimed and confirmed the importance of these Apostolic rules, the fathers of the Trullo Council at the same time explain the origin of these rules, namely: they explain that these rules are directly of St. They were not set down in writing by the Apostles (έκτεθέντας), as is said in the same 2nd rule regarding the remaining rules, but that they originate from the apostolic tradition, were preserved through oral tradition by the successors of the apostles, who accepted the mentioned rules and passed them on to others, and finally they were handed over to them (the fathers of the Council of Trullo) with the name of the Holy Apostles ( ονόματι τών Ἁποστόλων ). If St. The apostles themselves did not set out these rules in writing, but these rules were preserved in the church from the apostolic tradition, i.e. of what they orally conveyed to the heads of the churches they founded, the question arises: when does the apostolic tradition, which is expressed in the Apostolic Canons in their present form, become known in the church for the first time? Who collected this apostolic tradition and compiled these rules from it? And finally, was there at the very beginning the same number of these rules as the Trullian Council mentions and how many are currently accepted by the Orthodox Church? That these rules deserve in the full sense the authoritative name of the Holy Apostles and the respect that the universal Church recognizes for them, and that they serve as an exact expression of what the Apostles set forth in their writings in writing and handed down to their first successors orally - proof is the complete agreement of these rules in their main thoughts with the teaching contained in the canonical books of the New Testament Holy Scripture; further proof is that they strictly correspond to the church practice presented to us in the writings of the apostolic men and their closest successors, and finally, apostolic authority was recognized for them by the councils and fathers of the first centuries of the church 5 . The first time the rules of the Holy Apostles are clearly mentioned was at the first ecumenical council, therefore at the beginning of the 4th century. In its 1st canon, speaking about those who were castrated by force, the council adds that such, “however, they will be found worthy, the rule allows into the clergy,” and this is precisely what is discussed in the 21st Apostolic Canon. In its 2nd rule, the same council says that it is contrary to the “church rule” to accept into the clergy “people from pagan life who have recently begun to believe”; and the 80th Apostolic Canon speaks about this. Likewise, in their other canons, the fathers of this council expressly refer to the Apostolic canons. At the same time, i.e. in the first half of the 4th century, clearly refer to the Apostolic Canons and other councils, fathers and teachers of the church. The Council of Antioch (341) in many of its rules either literally repeats the Apostolic rules, or develops in great detail the thoughts contained in individual rules; Moreover, the order in the Antiochian rules is basically the same as in the Apostolic rules 6. The Council of Constantinople, regarding the feud over the Bishopric of Bostra, in the same 4th century, decided that a bishop could only be judged by a “greater council of bishops,” as defined by the Apostolic Canons; and this is precisely what defines the 74th Apostolic Canon. In the biography of King Constantine, belonging to Eusebius of Caesarea, we read a letter from the king to Eusebius, where the king praises Eusebius for not wanting to accept the see of Antioch and leave his own, for by doing so he fulfilled the prescription of the Apostolic Rule, which prohibits the movement of a bishop from one place to another; and this is precisely what the 14th Apostolic Canon prohibits. Athanasius the Great, in order to prove the illegality of his overthrow by the Arians, refers to Apostolic Canon 74 as a positive church law that determines which people can accuse a bishop 8. Basil the Great in many of his rules refers to the ancient rules (by which he means the Apostolic Rules), issuing his various canonical instructions 9 . After the 4th century, all councils and church fathers mention the Apostolic Canons as generally known throughout the church. And in the 6th century these rules appeared in the form of a special collection with the name of St. Apostles. Based on everything that has been said so far, especially on the basis of rules 1 and 2 of the First Ecumenical Council, which point to the Apostolic rules, such as those that were known to all the fathers of the council, the following. bishops of the entire Christian world, we can say with confidence that the Apostolic Canons in their present form and number became generally known throughout the church at the end of the 3rd century or, at the latest, at the beginning of the 4th century 10. John of Damascus in his essay “On the Orthodox Faith” says that the Apostolic Rules were collected by Clement, meaning, of course, Clement of Rome, the successor of the Apostles, who lived in the 1st century of the Christian era, who was mentioned as a collector of these rules back in the 6th Century 11. With all the reverence for Damascene for his many written works, it is impossible, however, to accept what he says about the person who collected the Apostolic Rules in one collection, for it has now been proven by science that, except for one letter to the Corinthians, Clement of Rome does not own anything else that was previously considered to belong to him 12 . At the same time, Clement, who is mentioned in Apostolic Canon 85 as the publisher of the collection of Apostolic Rules or, more precisely, “Apostolic Constitutions (Διαταγαι τών Ἁποστόλων)”, and on the basis of which Damascene, without a doubt, expressed his mentioned view - this Clement distinguishes himself from the writer of the Epistle to the Corinthians, namely Clement of Rome, since in the named Apostolic Canon he speaks of himself in the first person, and mentions the writer of the epistle in the third person 13. So, it was not Clement of Rome who collected and published the Apostolic Rules, and not Clement of Alexandria († 217), as the famous publisher of the rules of the Eastern Church, Beveridge (Beveregius), once argued, for there is no irrefutable evidence in favor of this opinion 14 . Neither Papias of Hierapolis nor Egesippus, both from the 2nd century of the Christian era, about whom Eusebius of Caesarea in his history says that they collected the apostolic tradition and wrote down everything they heard from different persons who had communication with the Apostles 15, could have been the collector of these Apostolic rules. The opinion that the collector of these Apostolic Rules could have been either Papias or Hegesippus arose from the general expressions of Eusebius, that the two persons mentioned collected and wrote down everything that they heard from the Apostolic tradition; but nowhere is this stated definitely, not only in Eusebius, but not in any other writer of the most ancient era, and therefore nothing definite can be based on this. A professor at the Roman Catholic University in Tübingen, Dr. Drey, in the first half of the last century, wrote an extensive study on the Apostolic Rules, a study many in the West consider authoritative and have largely accepted his findings and conclusions about the time and the collector of these rules 16 . In the newest Freiburg Roman Catholic Dictionary, the contributing writers still adhere to Dray's conclusions 17 . According to Drey, the Apostolic Rules were collected twice, namely: the first time in the 5th century 50 rules were collected, the second time at the beginning of the 6th century 35 rules of the latter, and thus from these two collections one collection of 85 rules was compiled in the East, while the West retained only a collection with 50 rules, and rejected the other collection with 35 rules as apocryphal. Drey does not dwell much on the question of the collector, since he cannot, on the basis of his own research, recognize either one or two collectors, but several, and since - according to his argumentation - the said rules do not represent, with small exceptions, anything other than a repetition of the rules of various councils: Nicene, Neo-Caesarean, Antioch, Laodicean, even Chalcedonian. This opinion of Drey about the origin of the Apostolic Rules might have been accepted, but for this the professor had to prove that the reverse work was impossible, i.e., that the aforementioned councils did not borrow their canonical decrees from the collection of the Apostolic Rules, as we have drawn a similar conclusion here on the basis of recognized canonical authorities. And since Drey did not prove this, his opinion cannot be given serious significance. Mortreil, a lawyer from Marseille, also from the first half of the last century, speaking about the collection of Apostolic Rules, expressed the idea that this collection was compiled around the middle of the 3rd century, when all the various disciplinary decrees that were preserved in individual churches through oral tradition were collected 18. And this opinion of Mortreil is closest to the truth. Having, therefore, no decisive data in favor of one specific compiler of the collection of the Apostolic Rules, we can, on the basis of the above, say that these rules were compiled and collected into one collection at the end of the 3rd century or, at the latest, at the beginning of the 4th century by an unknown pious person who called these rules “Apostolic”, wanting to show their true origin. We have seen that the second canon of the Council of Trullo mentions the 85 Apostolic Canons. We find such a number of Apostolic Rules in the canonical collection of John Scholasticus, the Patriarch of Constantinople, who compiled his collection around 550, next, 140 years before the Council of Trullo 19. Before this time, it is unknown who mentions the collection of the Apostolic Rules with so many rules. But that they were in such numbers from the very beginning is evidenced by the practice of the church of the first centuries, as can be seen from the writings of the fathers and teachers of the church of this era. The Eastern Church has always accepted and recognized this number of Apostolic Rules, and still accepts and recognizes them. In the West, only 50 Apostolic Rules have been adopted. In the first half of the 6th century, the abbot of a Roman monastery, Dionysius exiguus, at the invitation of Bishop Stephen of Solin (in Dalmatia), translated one canonical collection from Greek into Latin, and at the beginning of the collection he placed 50 Apostolic Canons 20 . Based on this Dionysian collection, the entire West, with greater or lesser restrictions, adopted exactly the same number of these rules. There are two opinions why Dionysius accepted only 50 Apostolic Rules into his collection. According to some, this depended on the characteristics of the Greek collection from which Dionysius made his translation and in which there were only 50 rules - they prove their view by the difference in the text of the rules, as they are set out in the Dionysian collection, from the text of the same rules in Greek handwritten collections 21. But it is difficult to accept this opinion, for it is almost impossible to admit that Dionysius, having received an invitation to translate the rules of the Eastern Church for ecclesiastical use in the West, so easily understood his work and would not try to compare at least several Greek manuscripts and, on the basis of them, compile his own collection, the task of which was so important. And this comparison should, without a doubt, lead him to the conclusion that in the East a much larger number of rules were recognized and accepted; Moreover, at that time Stephen of Ephesus published his canonical Synopsis, in which, if we do not find 85 Apostolic canons, but only 77, but in their (synoptic) content they correspond to all our current 85 canons. We must also say the same about the Synopsis of Simeon the Master from the Dionysian era, where 82 rules are given 22. And a few years after Dionysius, John Scholastic published his canonical collection, which contained a full 85 rules. In accordance with this, the above opinion that Dionysius contributed not 85, but only 50 rules to the collection must be recognized as unfounded and very superficial because the Greek manuscript from which he made his translation contained only 50 rules. Others claim that Dionysius translated only 50 rules, and omitted the last 35 and included in his collection the translation of only the first 50 rules, because he was instructed to do so from Rome 23. Judging by how the West generally looked at all the Apostolic canons with some suspicion and how Dionysius himself had to deal with these canons in different editions of his canonical collections, this opinion can be considered insufficiently substantiated. It was by no means pleasant for Rome to spread in the West, with the authority of the apostolic name, such rules that on many issues contradicted the practice of the Western Church and, moreover, condemned this practice. It is enough to pay attention to individual issues that are discussed in various rules from 51 onwards, and confirmation of what has been said will immediately be obvious. For example, the issue of celibacy of the clergy was a lively concern for the Western Church in the first centuries, and they tried by all means to force every clergyman to be unmarried. Many councils of the 3rd and 4th centuries in Gaul and Spain anathematize married clerics; the decretals of the popes threaten the cleric who lives with his wife with the strictest punishments; Pope Siricius calls the married life of a priest a crime. Given this state of affairs, it is not surprising that the West should have immediately rejected the rule that bore the name of the Apostolic and which, meanwhile, decisively overthrew the theories of celibacy. This is one of the rules not accepted by the West, or according to our calculation, the 51st Apostolic Canon. Fasting on Saturday became a custom in the West and was legalized by the decrees of individual Western councils and papal decretals; to accept and recognize the authority of the 66th Apostolic Canon, which prohibits such fasting, would mean before the whole world to admit one’s departure from the apostolic tradition. Fasting on Wednesday was forgotten in the West; they did not want to restore it, despite all the efforts of even Western church teachers themselves (especially Blessed. Augustine); and 69 The Apostolic Canon directly prescribes this fast and thereby condemns the Western Church for its innovation. Apostolic Canon 70 condemns anyone who eats unleavened bread in church, and in the West, even then, the custom of performing St. liturgy on unleavened bread. Such a solution, contrary to Western customs, to these and similar issues, which in the West were of vital importance as a means to achieving special goals, naturally should have caused the kind of opposition against the Apostolic Rules that we see in the 6th and subsequent centuries. And after this, it seems to us, it is now clear that the collection of the Apostolic Rules should contain the number of rules that the Orthodox Eastern Church first accepted and still recognizes, and that the Western Church, for the above reasons, rejected the last 35 rules, accepting only the first 50 rules at the beginning of the 6th century. Likewise, the meaning of the Apostolic Rules (not to mention their number) was not the same both in the West and in the East, although in the first edition of the Dionysian Collection the title of the rules stated that they were prolata per Clementem ecclesiae Romanae pontificem. While the East recognized their apostolic origin, the same Dionysius calls them Canones qui dicuntur Apostolorum, but adds that many doubt their apostolic origin; and in another canonical collection, which he later prepared, but from which the preface has been preserved, he completely omitted the Apostolic Canons, justifying himself by saying, quod non admisit universitas, ego quoque iu hoc opere praetermisi 24. The Roman bishops could not have desired the decrees contained in canons 5, 17, 18, 26 and 40 regarding the marriage of sacred persons, in canon 6 - on what priests should do, in canon 34 - on recognizing the independent power of the metropolitan, in canons 35 and 37 - on limiting the sole power of the Roman bishop in the church, or in canon 50 - on baptism through immersion. Therefore, the Roman bishops, using the power they had in the West, had to prohibit the dissemination of the Apostolic Rules and declare them apocryphal. Pope Gelasius issued (494) a decree de libris non recipiendis, and in addition to that decree, by the decision of one Roman bishop (apparently Hormizda † 523), the collection of Apostolic Canons was included among the prohibited books 25. In general, the Apostolic Rules almost lost all their significance in the West over the next three centuries. Only in the 9th century did False Isidore again accept these rules into his collection according to the Dionysian translation 26 . Afterwards they were included in the Gratian Decree (XII century), as a result of the recognition of the 2nd rule of the Trullo Council as binding for the Western Church, in the amount mentioned in this rule, following. all 85 rules, although the same decree contains extracts only from the first 50 rules according to the Dionysian translation 27. Currently, the definitions of the Apostolic Rules are as important in the West as the Decretum Gratiani, which, however, constitutes the first section of the Roman Catholic Corpus juris canonici. Thus we have shown that the Apostolic Rules come from St. The Apostles, that in their present number they were orally handed down from the Apostles to their first successors, and these apostolic successors preserved them by tradition until the last years of the 3rd century, or the first years of the 4th century, and that at that time, by an unknown pious person, they were collected together in one collection, accepted and recognized by the universal church, in the words of the 2nd canon of the Council of Trullo, “for the healing of souls and the healing of passions.” All the Apostolic Rules are found in the current official collections of individual local churches: the Slavic Helmsman, the Russian Book of Rules, the Greek Pidalion and the Romanian Indreptarea legii. Only in the latter they are summarized into 83 rules. With the name of St. There are several more rules of the Apostles in our Helmsman, which make up chapters 2, 3 and 4, namely the 17 rules of the Apostle Paul (chap. 2), the 17 rules of Peter and Paul (chap. 3) and the 2 rules of “all saints of the Apostle together” (chap. 4). These rules were extracted from Book VIII of the so-called Apostolic Constitutions and included in the Synopsis on which Aristinus wrote his interpretations and which served as the basis for both our Helmsman and the Indreptarea legii, although these rules are not in this last collection 28 . These rules are optional, for the Council of Trullo, with its 2nd rule, deprived the very source from which they were taken of all legal force. Zonara says the following about them: “Since the 2nd canon of the sixth council defines this precisely and nowhere mentions any other Apostolic canons besides these 85, then no other canons that bear the Apostolic name should be accepted; on the contrary, they should be condemned, considered false and rejected, because they bear false titles, are damaged and are not listed among those approved by the holy and divine fathers.” 29. The Orthodox Church accepts and recognizes seven ecumenical councils, which met from 325 to 787 30. Of these seven councils, which met about the heresies that appeared in the church, the rules of six have been preserved, namely: the first of Nicaea, the first of Constantinople, the Ephesus, the Chalcedonian, the Trullian and the second of Nicaea. The second and third councils of Constantinople did not issue any rules, and in order to fill in what was left unfinished by these councils, the fathers of the third council of Constantinople were convened another time in Constantinople, who, together with other bishops, gathered in 691 - 692 in the very same (εν Τρούλλω) royal chambers where they first met and issued the corresponding rules. In accordance with the purpose of this council, its rules are called the rules of either the sixth council, or the fifth-sixth, i.e. the fifth and sixth ecumenical or Trullian councils. Nicaea I, first ecumenical council 31. This council was convened regarding the heresy of Arius, presbyter of Alexandria. In order to show the falsity of the Arian teaching, which had already acquired many followers and threatened with a general infection, the Orthodox bishops decided to convene an ecumenical council, at which the Orthodox teaching would be approved by the voice of the universal church against the false Arian teaching. Emperor Constantine the Great meets the wishes of the Orthodox bishops, and a council meets in 325 in Nicaea, the main city of Bithynia. In total there were 318 fathers there. Among them the main ones were: Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, Eustathius, Bishop of Antioch, and Macarius, Bishop of Jerusalem; representatives of the Roman Bishop Sylvester were two deliberate legates, presbyter Victor and Vincent. Those famous for the holiness of their lives took part in the council: Nicholas of Myra, Spyridon of Trimifunt, Paphnutius of Thebaid, Hosea of ​​Corduba, etc. There were about 20 bishops from the Arians. Along with the bishops, there were several presbyters and deacons at the council; Among these latter, the young archdeacon of the Alexandrian church, Athanasius, stood out for his deep theological knowledge and eloquence. The first ceremonial meeting took place on May 20, 325, and the council continued until August 25 of the same year. The presiding place was occupied by Eustathius, Bishop of Antioch, and in his absence Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria. The honorary chairman was the emperor. After meetings on the main subject, at a meeting of the council on June 19, the symbol of the Orthodox faith was outlined. The Council issued 20 rules. They are found in such quantities in all canonical collections of both the Eastern and Western churches. In the Helmsman they make up chapter 5. In the edition of the conciliar acts of Harduin we find many other rules under the name of Nicene, which are translated from Arabic. Turrian's first translation contains 80 rules; the other, the Maronite Abraham Echellensis, contains 84 rules 32 . But those and other rules, except our 20, are all apocryphal 33. Constantinople I, second ecumenical council 34. Regarding the heresy of Macedonius, bishop of Constantinople, and at the request of the Orthodox bishops, Emperor Theodosius I convened a council in Constantinople in 381. There were 150 Orthodox bishops at the council, all from the eastern half of Christendom. The council began its meetings in May and ended on June 9 of the same year. Meletius of Antioch presided, and after his death, the presiding position was taken first of all by Gregory of Nazianzus, then by Nektarios of Constantinople. The emperor was present at the opening of the cathedral. After the condemnation of Macedonius, an addition to the Nicene Creed was published. Before the end of the council, 7 rules were issued. This number of rules was included in the main canonical collection; This is the number they appear in both the Book of Rules and the Pidalion. There are eight of them in Kormchay (chap. 11) and in Indreptarea; but this depends on the fact that in the Synopsis, the basis of these collections, the last (7) rule is divided into two. In Western collections there are only the first 4 rules of this council, and the last three are considered not published by this council, but added after 35. Ephesus, third ecumenical council 36. Fifty years after the second ecumenical council, the need arose to convene a new ecumenical council regarding the false teaching that arose on the Christological issue. This council was convened in Ephesus by Emperor Theodosius II. It opened on June 22, 431, had seven meetings and closed on July 31. There were about 200 fathers at the council, mostly Eastern. The representatives of the Roman Bishop Celestine were three legates. Cyril of Alexandria presided over the council. After the emerging heresy and the main heresiarch Nestorius, Archbishop of Constantinople, were condemned, and the Orthodox teaching was confirmed, the council began to resolve several issues of a disciplinary nature. The Eastern canonical collections contain 8 rules of this council. The first six rules have no disciplinary meaning; concern religious issues regarding heresy. The seventh rule talks about how to keep intact the established creed, and the eighth establishes the autocephaly of the Cypriot bishop. The message of the council sent to the Pamphylian council regarding the resignation submitted by the Pamphylian bishop Eustathius from the see he occupied is also of canonical significance. In accordance with this meaning of the message, it is given in Kormchey (chap. 12) and in Indreptarea as the ninth rule of the Council of Ephesus 37. These rules are not found in the canonical collections of the Western Church. Only individual Latin manuscripts contain extracts in one form or another from the council's decrees 38 . Chalcedon, fourth ecumenical council 39. The condemnation of Nestorius at the Council of Ephesus did not yet end the Christological question. Eutyches, the archimandrite of a monastery near Constantinople, erected a new heresy, about which an ecumenical council was to meet. Emperor Marcian assembled this council, which took place and opened in Chalcedon on October 8, 451; had sixteen meetings and was closed on November 1 of the same year. There were 630 fathers on it. Representatives of the Western Church were five Roman legates. The leading role at the council belonged to Anatoly of Constantinople, Paschasius and Lucentius, legates of the Roman bishop, Maximus of Antioch and Juvenal of Jerusalem. After analyzing the teachings of Eutyches, the council declared him a heretic and approved the corresponding dogma of the Orthodox faith. At the last two meetings, the council issued 30 rules, i.e. At these meetings, 28 rules were issued, and rules 29 and 30 were set out at the fourth meeting of the council, and now they are only added to the rest. The Helmsman, the Book of Rules, the Pidalion and the Indreptarea contain the same number of Chalcedonian rules. Western canonical collections contain only 27 rules of this council. The last two (29 and 30) are not given, in all likelihood, because they were not published quite clearly in the form of rules; and the 28th is not given because the Roman legates protested against it at this council, seeing in it a humiliation of the primacy of the Roman bishop 40. Trullo, fifth-sixth ecumenical council. The council, known under the general name of Trullo, took place, as we said, with the aim of supplementing the rules of the fifth and sixth ecumenical councils, which dealt exclusively with dogmatic issues, but did not issue a single prescription regarding church discipline 41 . Meanwhile, there was an urgent need for the authority of the ecumenical council to issue rules that would establish discipline, weakened as a result of heretical unrest; it was necessary to restore the power of previous councils and establish strict order in the Church with new rules. Since the fathers of the VI Ecumenical Council dispersed immediately after the dogmatic definition of this council, it was necessary to convene them another time so that they would issue the necessary rules and thereby supplement what had not been done earlier. The council, in accordance with its task, was called the fifth-sixth (Πενθεκτη, Quini-Sexta), and since this council is nothing more than a continuation of the council of 681 and took place in the very department of the royal chambers where the meetings of this last council were held, the rules issued by it are called the rules of the sixth ecumenical council of Trullo. At the invitation of Emperor Justinian II, the fathers gathered for a council in Constantinople in 691. The time of conciliar meetings falls on September 1, 691 to August 31, 692. There were 227 fathers on it; track. 53 more than in 681. Personally present were: the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem; The representatives of the Pope were the legates appointed by him, among whom the main one was Vasily, Archbishop of Gortyn. After greeting the emperor, the council immediately began its proceedings and issued 102 rules. These rules have been adopted in all eastern canonical collections. In the Helmsman they make up chapter 18; in Indreptarea they are combined into 98 rules, The Western Church does not now recognize all these rules as binding on itself. But it wasn't like that before. At the cathedral itself there were Roman legates, and we find the signature of Vasily Gortynsky among the first on the acts of the cathedral. On VII all. Council, when, regarding the 82nd Rule of Trullo, these rules were mentioned as Rule VI of the whole. Council, the Roman legates did not even think of objecting. Pope Adrian I solemnly announces his recognition of these rules in one of his letters to Patriarch Tarasius, and also in another letter to the Frankish bishops in defense of the VI Ocen. cathedral Pope John VIII, speaking about these rules, does not object to them. Innocent III cites rule 82 and calls it rule VI all. cathedral In his Decretum, Gratian cited many rules of our council, like the rules of the VIth. cathedral Over the course of centuries, in the West they began to look at these rules differently and about all the mentioned and other evidence they say that the named persons only out of ignorance attributed these rules to the VI Ecumenical Council 42. Nicaea II, seventh ecumenical council 43. This council was convened against the iconoclasts by the Empress Irina and her son. It was opened on September 24, 787 and lasted a whole month. There were eight meetings, of which seven were in Nicaea and the eighth in Constantinople. Tarasius of Constantinople presided, and at the eighth meeting Irina and her son took the chair. The number of those present at the council, according to surviving data, ranges between 300 and 367. The entire church, eastern and western, was represented at it. After the dogma of icon veneration was approved, 22 rules were issued. These are included in all canonical collections of the Eastern Church. In the Helmsman they make up chapter 18. After the rules of this council, in the editions of the conciliar acts there is also a letter from Tarasius of Constantinople to Pope Adrian I about simony 44. It was written immediately after this council and therefore in old collections it was cited immediately after the rules of the 7th century. cathedral We will talk about this message below. See Rules of Local Councils The rules of only those Local Councils are binding for the entire Church, for which the universal Church has recognized such significance. There are eleven such councils, namely: the ten aforementioned and the Council of Carthage under Cyprian (255) on the baptism of heretics. The rules of all these eleven councils are found in the Athenian Syntagma and Pydalion 45. In the canonical collections of Slavic and Romanian there are rules of only ten councils, but they do not contain the rules of the Carthaginian Council, which was under Cyprian. The main reason why the aforementioned Carthaginian Council is omitted from the latest collections is that the resolution of this council on the need to baptize any heretic or schismatic who converts to Orthodoxy 46 is not mandatory for the entire church, but this resolution, according to the 2nd rule of the Council of Trullo, was significant, in relation to the circumstances of the place and time, only for the African church. Balsamon, in his interpretation of this rule, says: “This (rule) establishes that all those who turn from heretics or schismatics to the Orthodox Church must be baptized again, even if they had previously received baptism. Meanwhile, Rule 7 II is all. The Council prescribes something completely different in relation to those who should and should not be baptized again, establishing a precise difference in that. Therefore, read this rule and follow the one that was published later. Read also the 2nd rule of the Council of Trullo and you will see that what this letter says is not accepted by all the fathers, for it says this: “a rule issued by Cyprian, the former archbishop of the African region and martyr, and his council, and observed only in the places of the primates mentioned there, according to faithful custom”... From this it follows that in the beginning this rule was not in the custom of all of them... Α since the 7th rule of the Second Council prescribes something completely different from what is established in this epistle in relation to heretics and schismatics turning to the faith, its prescription remained neglected” 47 . The rules of the next ten councils were accepted by the entire church. Ancyra Cathedral 48. After Maximin's persecution of Christians, when peace was established, many of the Christians who, either out of fear or for some other reason, had abandoned the church, now again urgently asked to be accepted into the church. The question of whether they should be accepted, and the very manner of their acceptance, in accordance with the circumstances under which they retreated, were not at all clear to the bishops. And for this purpose, a council was convened, which was supposed to pronounce its judgment on this. The council took place in 314 in Ancyra in Galatia, there were about 18 bishops from Asia Minor and Syria under the chairmanship of Vitaly, bishop of Antioch, and it issued 25 rules, of which the first 9 and 12 rules deal with the main issue that gave rise to the council; the rest speak of general church discipline. – In the Helmsman they make up chapter 6. The Council of Neocaesarea 49 took place after the Council of Ancyra, between 314 and 325. There were 24 bishops at it, chaired by the same Bishop Vitaly of Antioch, who also presided over the Council of Ancyra. 15 rules were published, which make up Chapter 7 in the Helmsman. Gangra Cathedral 50. This council took place in the middle of the 4th century, around 340, in Gangra, the main city of Paphlagonia, regarding Eustathius, bishop of Sebaste, a semi-Arian, and his followers, who preached reckless asceticism and, as a result, caused a lot of unrest in the church. Eusebius of Nicomedia presided at the council, and 13 bishops were present. In the canonical collections there are 21 rules of this council, namely: 20 rules against the Eustathians, and the 21st is the epilogue of all the rules. The rules are found in the same number and in the same order in the Book of Rules and in the Pidalion. In the Indreptarea and in Chapter 8 of the Helmsman, these rules are given differently. At the beginning there is the title of the council's message to the bishops of Armenia 51, then in the first there are 20, and in the second there are 19 rules. This depends on the fact that there are only 20 rules in the Synopsis, the basis of both collections, and in the Helmsman the 9th rule is connected to the 10th. Council of Antioch 52. About 100 bishops gathered at the consecration of the new church in Antioch in the middle of 341. After the consecration of the church, the assembled bishops formed a council to issue certain decrees in the interests of universal uniformity of church government. Plaquet, Bishop of Antioch, presided at this council; 25 rules were published, which were all included in the general church canonical collection and which are spoken of with special respect by both the East and the West. In the Helmsman they make up chapter 9. Council of Laodicea 53. Around 343, a council was composed of many bishops of Asia Minor in Laodicea, the main city of Phrygia, at which 60 rules of various contents were issued, which all, although in different divisions, were included in canonical collections. In Pidalion their number is the same as in the Book of Rules. In the Helmsman, the rules of the Laodicean Council are chapter 10, their number is 58, but in terms of content they are all completely contained in it. Indreptarea has 59 rules, which depends on the fact that the last two rules are combined into one. Serdica Cathedral 54. On the border between the eastern and western halves of the Greco-Roman Empire, in Serdica (now Sofia) in 343 55, a large council was held with the aim of establishing agreement regarding Athanasius the Great between the eastern and western bishops, divided among themselves as a result of Arian intrigues. All those present at this council were 376 members, of which 300 were western and only 76 eastern. Hosea, the bishop of Corduba, well known from the Nicene council, presided. After all the accusations against Athanasius were recognized as unfounded and the Nicene symbol was approved, the council issued 21 rules on church discipline, and all these rules were included in the general church canonical collection 56. In our current collections the difference is only in the numbering order of the rules, but in terms of content they are all contained in them. The Indreptarea contains all the rules. There are 20 of them in Pidalion; there is no 18th, but since this last one is inextricably linked with the next one (19), which talks about the same subject, the content of the rules themselves does not suffer from this at all. The Rulebook also only has 20 rules, which depends on the fact that 18 and 19 make one 18th. The base is the same as for Pidalion. In Kormchay the order is different, although there are a total number of them - 21 rules. Council of Constantinople 57. Regarding the dispute between the two bishops Agapius and Bagadius, each of whom argued his right to the metropolitan see in Bostra in Arabia, a council was convened in Constantinople in 394 to resolve this dispute. Nectarius of Constantinople, Theophilus of Alexandria, Flavian of Antioch and 17 other bishops took part in this council. Nektary presided. It was determined that a bishop could be deposed by a council of many bishops, and not just three; and this definition was published as a special rule, which was later included in the general church canonical collection. This rule is found in various forms in current collections, which mostly contain excerpts from the full text. In the Pidalion it is divided into two rules: the first is made up of a proposal from Bishop Arabian, indicating the relevant decree of the Council of Nicea that two bishops can neither install nor depose another bishop; and the second - from the final determination of the chairman of the council. In the Indreptarea, in the Helmsman and the Book of Rules there is only one rule, and then in a very abbreviated form. In the latter it is composed: the first half is from the final definition of Nectarius, and the other from the proposal of Theophilus of Alexandria. Council of Carthage 58. The question of the right of the pope to accept appeals from the decisions of councils of the African church gave rise to the convening of the great council of Carthage in 419. There were 217 bishops present at the council, chaired by Aurelius, Archbishop of Carthage. There were also representatives of the Roman Church. Two main meetings took place: the first on May 25 and the second on May 30. After the main case had been considered and any right of the Pope to accept appeals from the decisions of the council of bishops of the African Church had been solemnly rejected, the fathers of the council issued several rules on church discipline, then revised all the rules issued at previous councils of the African Church, starting with the year 348. In no other church, as in the African church, were the rules regarding annual councils observed so strictly. History has preserved for us data about the many councils that took place in this church in the first centuries for legislative purposes; Consequently, many church disciplinary rules should have appeared, which were issued at all these councils. Among these rules, many were similar to each other and identical in subject matter, and many, due to the circumstances of the place and time of their publication, had only local and temporary significance and, therefore, could not be binding on everyone. The fathers of the Council of Carthage in 419 reviewed all the previous rules and, from among all of them, adopted and introduced for the entire African church the rules of the following fourteen councils: a) Carthage 348, b) Carthage 390, c) Ippon 393, d) Carthage 397, e) Carthage June 16, 401, f) Carthaginian 13 September 401, g) Milevite 402, h) Carthaginian 403, i) Carthaginian 404, i) Carthaginian 405, j) Carthaginian 407 and Carthaginian - k) 409, m) 410 and n) 418. 121 rules for these fees were adopted. To them the council of 419 added 12 rules, and thus at this council 133 rules, now known as the rules of the Council of Carthage, were adopted and recognized as generally binding for all. In some collections, also in our Helmsman, in addition to those mentioned, there are five more rules, although they are not rules in the strict sense, but either the messages of African fathers, or the answers of one or another to the questions proposed to them by the Carthaginian Council. The first rule is the message of the council to Pope Boniface on the main issue for which the council was meeting in 419; the second and third are the answers of Cyril of Alexandria and Atticus of Constantinople, which transmit the authentic acts of the Council of Nicaea; the fourth is a letter with the symbol and rules of the Council of Nicaea, addressed by the fathers of the Council of Carthage to Pope Boniface, and the fifth is a letter from the same fathers of 424 to Pope Celestine on the same issue for which the council of 419 was convened. Namely, one presbyter (Apiarius), whom the council condemned, turned to Pope Celestine, seeking his protection, and the pope found it possible to take this presbyter under his protection and in this sense wrote to the Carthaginian fathers. The response of the fathers to this Celestine letter with the rejection of his petition for the said presbyter constitutes the named epistle. Α it is placed next to the rules of the council of 419 because it relates directly to this council and represents the final determination on the main issue of the council. The rules of the Council of Carthage were included in all canonical collections; but they are presented there in a very diverse manner, both regarding text and numbering. There are as many of them in the original collection as in the Athenian Syntagma, namely 133 and the 5 additional rules mentioned. These latter are not numbered in the Athenian Syntagma, but in old collections they appear under numbers 134, 135, 136, 137 and 138. They are also numbered in our Helmsman. In later collections of these (additional) rules there are either no rules at all, or only some of them are given. Likewise, the number of rules is different. There are 134 of them in Kormchay and an additional five; in Indreptarea there are 141, and there are none of the additional ones. In the Pidalion there are also 141 of them and messages to Boniface and Celestine, and in the Book of Rules there are 147 of them and a message to Celestine. From this quantitative difference in the rules one should not conclude that in the Athenian Syntagma some rules are omitted, which are found in the mentioned collections; on the contrary, in it these rules are much more complete than in those, and some rules of the Athenian Syntagma, for example, are not at all in the Pidalion, such as: 14, 34, 70, 88, 92, 118 and 122 rules. The larger number of rules in the mentioned collections depends on the fact that some rules are divided into two, three and five rules, as a result of which there were a larger number of them. The method of dividing one rule into several by well-known publishers, although largely justified from the point of view of the content of the various rules, such a division should be considered at the same time arbitrary, as has been proven regarding the publishers of Pidalion. Regarding the Book of Rules, perhaps the publishers were guided by previous editions, for there is one Parisian edition, which, like the Book of Rules, contains 147 rules of the Council of Carthage. Constantinople Cathedral in the Church of St. Apostles 59. The ninth century, the century of Nicholas I and Photius, can be considered one of the most turbulent, and at the same time the saddest in its consequences for the church. The case of the overthrow of Patriarch Ignatius and the election of Photius to the patriarchal throne caused great unrest in the east, and at the same time gave the Pope a reason to intervene in the internal affairs of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. On the other hand, iconoclasm, although it was condemned in the 7th century. cathedral, continued to excite the church even in this century. In order to pronounce the final condemnation of iconoclasm and restore the broken peace in the church, it was decided to convene a great council of bishops, which took place in early May 861 in Constantinople in the Church of St. Apostles. Emperor Michael III was present at the council; there were 318 bishops; the pope was represented by deliberate legates. At its first meeting, the council could not come to the desired decision due to indignation on the part of the non-Orthodox, and only at the second meeting was it possible to act freely. Due to this double meeting of the council, it is called: the first-second council (πρώτη καί δευτέρα, primo-secunda, double). During its second meeting, the council confirmed the condemnation of iconoclasm, then the correctness of the election of Patriarch Photius to the See of Constantinople was recognized, and after all, 17 rules regarding church discipline were issued. In the Helmsman, the Book of Rules and the Indreptarea, these rules occupy the penultimate place in the series of cathedral rules; in Pidalion they follow immediately after the rules of the VII verse. cathedral Constantinople Cathedral in the Church of St. Sofia 60. The peace established in the church in 861 was soon disrupted again due to events of a very special nature; and this peace was restored only after the death of the former Patriarch Ignatius, when Pope John VIII was on the Roman throne. For the solemn approval of this world, a council was convened in 879 in Constantinople in the church of St. Sofia. There were 383 fathers on it; The Pope was represented by three special legates. Having solemnly proclaimed peace between the Eastern and Western churches, the council issued 3 rules, which in the Helmsman, the Book of Rules and the Indreptarea occupy the last place between the cathedral rules, and in the Pidalion they are in a different place among the rules of Local Councils. In the 2nd canon of the Trullo Council, twelve fathers are mentioned, whose rules are binding on the entire church, those same twelve fathers who were mentioned above at the beginning of our review (pp. 8–9). In addition to these twelve, the message of the Patriarch Tarasius of Constantinople on simony is also binding on all. Just as the councils were the interpreters of the basic legal principles expressed in Holy Scripture and Tradition, so were the individual fathers the interpreters of the council’s definitions. The cathedral rules represented general definitions that the pastors of one or another local church had to apply in individual cases and in accordance with given circumstances, at their own discretion and under their personal responsibility. This practical application of conciliar definitions on the part of individual pastors was often made explicit in their district epistles to their flock, in the canonical epistles of one shepherd to another, in their canonical answers to questions posed to them, etc. The deep knowledge of the canons by individual pastors earned them universal respect in the church, and from their epistles or other writings the corresponding passages were borrowed, which represent the sublime rules of pastoral administration and as such were accepted and approved for the entire church and, together with the rules of the councils, became part of the general church canonical collections 61. The difference between the rules of the fathers and the councils is quite accurately depicted by one of the best canonists of modern times as follows: “The difference between the rules of the councils and the fathers lies in the fact that the councils extended their legislative power to the highest parties in the church, determined the order and laws of its administration itself, concerned its hierarchy, pronounced its supreme judgment on the most governmental persons in it; and the fathers set out in parts their definitions regarding various private subjects, more specifically persons governed in the church, and court, more spiritual than external, official; concerned matters more moral than governmental in the church" 62 . The rules of the fathers were not originally issued in the form of separate legislative decrees, but they were either extracts from various writings of the fathers, or, mainly, messages sent by them to individuals, which, in view of their content, were called “canonical epistles.” Over time, depending on the content, they were divided into several rules, and in this form they were included in the general church collection. The first was John Scholasticus (in the 6th century), who included two letters of Basil the Great Amphilochius in his collection; after it, in all church-wide collections we find the rules of epistles. Namely, when Gregory was bishop in Neocaesarea, barbarian peoples attacked Ponte and devastated the cities. During these barbaric attacks, Christians behaved unworthy of their name, and many of them assisted the barbarians and themselves fell into grave sins. As the chief bishop of Pontus, Gregory issued his indicated message, explaining the gravity of the sins committed and imposing appropriate punishments for them. The message is divided into several rules; but we find these rules in different numbers in canonical collections. There are 11 of them in the Athenian Syntagma, 12 in the Book of Rules and Pidalion, and 13 in the Helmsman (chap. 28). In the Indreptarea there is not a single one. The epistle itself is actually made up of the first ten rules according to the Athenian edition of the Syntagma, or the first 11 according to the Book of Rules and Pidalion, and the last is not an integral part of the epistle itself, but the later addition is an addition from the rule of Basil the Great regarding the degrees of repentance. Therefore, in the translation of rule 11, after the words: “speaks” (φησί), we put in brackets - who speaks, namely Basil the Great in his 75 rule 63. Α since this addition or 11 (al. 12) rule is not in the Synopsis, this explains why it is not in the Helmsman, which was compiled according to the Synopsis. The difference in the number of first rules depends on the fact that the first rule in our edition is divided into two in these collections, and instead of ten there were eleven. In the Helmsman, as we said, there is no this addition, and the number 13 in it is explained by the fact that according to our edition of the rules, 2 and 4 are each divided into two. Peter, Archbishop of Alexandria († 311) 64. Glorious for his education, Peter in 295 accepted the position of head of the Alexandrian school, which he ruled for five years, and in 300 he was elected archbishop of Alexandria. For only three years he ruled his church peacefully, and in 303, when Diocletian’s decree on persecution against Christians was issued, misfortunes began for the Alexandrian shepherd, which ended in his martyrdom. During the persecution, many Christians apostatized from the faith and used all sorts of means just to free themselves from torment. The majority nevertheless returned to church again, bringing repentance for their apostasy. Peter drew attention to this circumstance; being imbued with Christian love and wanting to provide help to those who, out of need, renounced Christ and the church, and now through repentance again entered the church, he wrote in 306 a word on repentance, where he indicates a way to enter into church communion for those who have departed from the church. This word of Peter, divided into 14 rules, was included in the general church collection. These numbers are found in the Book of Rules and the Pidalion. In the Helmsman (chap. 27), there are 13 of them, as in the Synopsis, for rules 6 and 7, according to our edition, constitute one (6) rule in it. Indreptarea does not have these rules. The last (15) rule in our “Collection”, as well as in the three mentioned collections, about fasting on Wednesday and Friday, is taken from one word of Peter on Easter. Athanasius the Great († 373) 65. Having deeply studied the truths of the Christian faith, Athanasius gained eternal fame as a defender of Orthodoxy against Arianism, for which he was rightly called the “father of Orthodoxy” and “the great.” He began to intensively develop his activities for the benefit of the church from the time when Arianism appeared, and consistently continued it until the end of his life. Numerous works that Athanasius left are of apologetic, polemical, historical, dogmatic and moral content. For church law, three are important, namely: his message to Ammun, the XXXIX message on the holidays and the message to Rufinian. The first letter was written around 356 in response to the monk Ammun, who turned to Athanasius for guidance on how to judge involuntary nocturnal defilement of the flesh. The second was written in 367 and treats the canonical books of Holy Scripture. This message came to us incomplete, without a beginning, but to indicate this we put several dots at the beginning of the message. The third was written to Bishop Rufinian about 370 in response to his question as to how heretics should be received when they approach the church. The order in which these three messages are given in the Athenian Syntagma and in our “Collection” is the same in both the Helmsman and the Pidalion. In the Book of Rules there is first a message to Ammun, then to Rufinian, then about the holidays. In the Helmsman (chap. 29), after the letter to Rufinian (there, as in the Synopsis, this bishop is named Ruthian), there is another passage entitled: “The same from another letter,” and it speaks of the sublimity of virginity 66; Meanwhile, this is not any new message, but only an extract from the message to Ammun. These Athanasian epistles are not found in the Indreptarea. Basil the Great († 379) 67. Of all the holy fathers and teachers of the church, Basil the Great has the most importance for church law and for church discipline in general. He completed his scientific education in Athens, where Gregory the Theologian, with whom Basil the Great was in the closest friendship, also studied at the same time. After that, he traveled to Egypt, Palestine and Mesopotamia and during this trip he met many holy people (Macarius, Paphnutius, etc.), who awakened in him a deep respect for monastic life. When he returned, he devoted himself entirely to a solitary life and settled in one completely deserted place, where he and Gregory spent a lot of time. In 370 he was appointed to the Caesarea throne. Zeal for the glory of Christ, for the establishment of the Orthodox faith in those troubled times and for the establishment of order and morality in the church, was manifested in Vasily to such an extent that he earned the name “great”, “glory and decoration of the church.” From Basil the Great, 92 rules were included in the general church collection. They were compiled from eight of his epistles and from his book “On the Holy Spirit.” The first 85 rules make up three epistles that Basil sent to Amphilochius, bishop of Iconium. Amphilochius had special respect for Basil and, in addition to personal conferences with him about the welfare of the church, he often turned to him in writing, asking him to resolve various issues of church government and general church discipline, or to clarify any place of Holy Scripture that seemed unclear to him. The answers to these Amphilochian questions constitute the content of the messages or the first 85 rules of Basil the Great. The next (86) rule is again an extract from one message that Basil sent to Amphilochius in 376. Rule 87 - message to Diodorus, Bishop of Tara, with whose name a letter reached Basil, in which there were attacks on one of his definitions regarding kinship. Rule 88 is Basil's decision about the presbyter Gregory, who had one woman in his house. Rule 89 is a message to the chorebishops who have overstepped the boundaries of their authority. Regarding the suspicion raised against his subordinate bishops that they were Simonists, Basil wrote a special letter, which constitutes rule 90. The last two (91 and 92) rules are extracted from Basil’s famous essay “On the Holy Spirit,” written regarding the accusation that he does not profess the deity of the Holy Spirit. And this work is addressed to Amphilochius, who prompted Basil to write it. Of the rules of the fathers, the rules of Basil the Great were the first to be included in canonical collections, and then the rules of other fathers were included. They are in all current collections. The only difference is the quantity. The Pidalion and the Book of Rules have the same number, as do the Athenian Syntagma and our Compilation. In Kormcha (chap. 21) there are 91 of them, and this depended on the fact that there is no conclusion to the third letter of Amphilochius, and the first three letters are divided into 84 rules. In Indreptarea it is different. There are 85 rules in total. The first three epistles are divided into 80 rules, the 81st corresponds to our 86th, the 82nd is an epistle to Presbyter Gregory, the 83rd epistle to the chorebishops, the 84th is an epistle to subordinate bishops, and the 85th rule is an essay by Basil the Great on the various degrees of repentance, found in Synopsis 68. In Kormcha, chapters 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25 were compiled from the rules of Basil the Great. Timothy of Alexandria († 355) 69 . A student of Athanasius the Great, Timothy was the successor of his brother Peter in the Alexandrian see. Little is known about the life of Timofey, except that he participated in the II All. Council and took an active part in the then controversial issue of the See of Constantinople 70. Many canonical answers from Timothy to questions put to him by various bishops and clergy have come down to us. Of these responses, 18 were included in the general church collection; they are found in such numbers in the Pidalion, and in the Book of Rules, and in the Indreptarea. In the Helmsman (chap. 32) these answers are called “rules”; there are only 15 of them; the last three are missing 71. Of the rest of Timothy's answers, some are found in the Indreptarea (pp. 693 et ​​seq.)• Gregory the Theologian († 389) 72. Devoted to a solitary life and deeply pious, Gregory considered himself unworthy of priestly service, but he had to yield to the general desire and in 381 he was installed on the archbishop's throne in Constantinople. Noticing that some did not like his election, he immediately refused and went to Nazians, where he spent the last years of his life in seclusion in book studies. Gregory wrote his works either in prose or in poetry. He used the latter method of writing, as he himself says, mainly in order to preserve Christian truth from the Apollinarians, who spread their false teaching in verse. From such poetic works of Gregory, his poems about the canonical books of Holy Scripture of the Old and New Testaments were accepted into the general church canonical collection. In the Book of Rules and in the Pidalion they are placed in their places. In Kormchay, together with the verses of Amphilochius on the same subject, they make up chapter 30. There are none in the Indreptarea, just as there are no fathers following Gregory the Theologian at all. Amphilochius of Iconium († 395) 73 . Amphilochius participated in the II All. cathedral, as a zealous defender of Orthodoxy against the Doukhobors, and a year before his death he participated again in Constantinople at the council of 394 regarding Agapius and Bagadius, where he helped establish the authority of episcopal dignity. The letter of Amphilochius to Seleucus about the canonical books of Holy Scripture was included in the general church canonical collection and is in its place in the Pidalion and the Book of Rules. The Helmsman is chapter 30, together with verses on the same subject by Gregory the Theologian. Gregory of Nyssa († 395) 74 . The younger brother of Basil the Great, Gregory was famous for his rigor of life, his learning, his enlightened zeal for Orthodoxy and his excellent gift of speech. As Bishop of Nyssa, he participated in the Second All. cathedral and for his zeal and defense of Orthodox teaching was called the “pillar of Orthodoxy.” He later participated in the Council of Constantinople in 394 under Nektarios, regarding the well-known issue of the Bostra metropolitanate. Of his numerous writings, his message to Lita, Bishop of Melitino in Armenia, was included in the canonical collections. The latter turned to Gregory, asking him to answer what penances should be imposed for various sins. In response, Gregory sent him this message in 390, in which he reveals his deep psychological knowledge and at the same time shows severity in punishing sins much greater than his predecessors. This message is divided into 8 rules and such numbers are found in the Pidalion, the Book of Rules and the Helmsman. In this last one (chapter 31) the division is only different. Rule I in the Athenian Syntagma and in our “Collection” makes up the “Preface” in the Helmsman, the 2nd, 3rd and 4th correspond to 1, 2, and 3 in it, the 5th makes up 4 and 5 in the Helmsman, then the numbers coincide. There is no conclusion to the message in Kormchay. Theophilus of Alexandria († 412) 75. From Theophilus of Alexandria, known for his dislike of John Chrysostom in 76, his Easter words, several epistles and rules have come down to us. These latter are composed: from a) one of his definitions on the question of whether the eve of Epiphany will happen on Sunday; b) instructions to Ammon on various issues of a special nature that relate to church rites; c) instructions on accepting kafars into the clergy; b) instructions to Bishop Agathon and e) instructions to Bishop Mina. The first about the Epiphany is one rule, the instruction to Ammon is divided into 10 rules, the remaining instructions are each one rule, the following in total. 14 rules. In the Book of Rules and the Pidalion, the said rules bear the corresponding titles of the sources from which they are taken; only the title of the instruction on the kafars is different. The original says: A φήγησις, which we translated with the word “izjava” (explanation). Α in Pydalion stands: A φυγίψ ( ή A φρυγίψ παρ άλλοις ) ' Επισκοπώ, περί ...; in the Book of Rules: Αφυγγίψ ᾿Επισκοπψ, περί ... (To Bishop Athenius, o.....). The reason why we translated it this way is that we wanted to strictly follow the original 77. In the Pilot (chap. 33), except for the first article, the others do not have a title. In the first rule in the Helmsman we read in the middle: “according to the usual service of St. John Chrysostom.” This insertion is not in Synopsis 78, and therefore, bearing in mind Theophilus’s relationship with Chrysostom, we believe that it was made out of ignorance. Cyril of Alexandria († 444) 79 . The nephew of Theophilus of Alexandria (on his sister), Cyril did not share his views on Chrysostom and had deep respect for the latter, especially in recent times. He was elected archbishop in 412 and from that time on he showed living zeal as an apologist for pure Orthodoxy, as an exegete and as a wise ruler of the church. He became famous especially in the fight against Nestorianism and energetic activity in the III century. cathedral From a canonical point of view, several rules of Cyril are significant, compiled from two of his messages: one to Domnus, Archbishop of Antioch, regarding Bishop Peter, who complained that he was forced to renounce his see, and the other to the bishops of Libya and Pentapolis regarding illegal ordinations. From these two messages, 5 rules were compiled: the first three from the first message, and from the second message 2 rules, which were included in the general church collection. They are found in such numbers with the corresponding titles in the Pidalion and the Book of Rules. In Kormchay (chapter 34) there are also; but they are also added to: a) Maximus the deacon, b) Gennady the Archimandrite, c) from the letter to Eulogius of Alexandria and d) eleven anathematisms of Cyril against Nestorius (35 chapters). All these articles are in the Synopsis and from there they were transferred to the Helmsman 80. Gennady of Constantinople († 471) 81. Elected to the Patriarchate of Constantinople, Gennady highly raised the authority of his department, which had previously been darkened as a result of the false teachings spread from that department by its individual representatives. Distinguished by his deep piety, he especially grieved the fact that in the Church of Christ, simony had established itself among many bishops, which gave rise to condemnation of the very organization of the church. To prevent this great evil in the church, Gennadius convened a council of 81 bishops in Constantinople in 459, and here the district letter against simony was compiled, which was later included in all canonical collections. It was intended, as can be seen from its title, to all the bishops of the east and the Pope 82. In the Pilot, this message is found in chapter 36 among other messages against simony and the signatures of all (81) bishops are given. There are no signatures in the Pidalion, but it is said that this message was signed together with Gennady by “seventy-three or eighty-one bishops.” There are also no signatures in the Book of Rules, but it is said that “seventy-three bishops” signed with Gennady. Tarasius of Constantinople († 809) 83. Elected patriarch of Constantinople in 786. For their persistent representations to Empress Irina and Konstantin Porphyrogenitus about the convening of the VII Universe. Council, which was supposed to put an end to iconoclasm, Tarasius gained eternal fame in the church. Of the many works of Tarasius for canon law, his message to Pope Hadrian against simony, which did not cease to desecrate the Church of Christ and darken the authority of priestly dignity, is important. In the Book of Rules and Pidalion this message is given in its place. In Kormchay it forms, together with other articles against simony, chapter 36. The message of Tarasius, as we have already mentioned, is found in many collections immediately after the rules of the VII universe. Council, for it was published immediately after the Council and was added to the Council’s definitions. The Epistle of Tarasius ends the main canonical collection of the Orthodox Church. It is followed by the mentioned addition, namely: Canon of John the Faster († 595) 84. John became Patriarch of Constantinople in 582 and was especially respected by the people. For his always strict fast, he was called "The Faster" (Νηστευτής, Jejuniator). Of the writings of John the Faster, his Canonicon is significant for church law, in which he instructs confessors on how to act during confession and how to apply the appropriate rules for various sins 85 . For a number of centuries this book was held in great esteem. In the XIV century. Vlastar compiled from it a manual for confessors 86; and this guide book of Vlastar, compiled from the Canonikon of the Postnik, passed into the Greek canonical collections, first of all into the Pidalion, and then into the Athenian Syntagma 87. The canonicon of John the Faster served as the basis for the Nomocanon, which is located in the Slavic Great Breviary. Rules of Nikephoros the Confessor († 818) 88. Nikephoros became Patriarch of Constantinople in 806 and ruled the church until 815, when he was deposed from the pulpit by the iconoclastic emperor Leo the Armenian because he wanted to remain faithful to the definitions of the 7th century. cathedral, and died in captivity. Some of his many writings are important for church law. We know: a) about the first (6) ecumenical councils 89, b) canonical regulations on various subjects 90, c) rules extracted from his type 91, and d) rules extracted from church decrees that he, together with other holy fathers, issued 92. Of all the rules of Nikephoros, Blastarus collected 37 main ones, which were included in the Pidalion, and according to another manuscript, 38 were included in the Athenian Syntagma. 7 more rules were added in both collections, then in the Athenian Syntagma 9 more from the general church decrees of Nicephorus, and 17 canonical questions and answers from one of his canonical epistles 93. The Helmsman (57 chapters) includes 23 rules collected by Vlastar 94. Synodal responses of Nicholas of Constantinople. During this patriarch (1086–1111) 95, the Svyatogorsk (Athos) monks turned to the Patriarchal Synod of Constantinople with various questions of a church and service nature. The solutions to these questions are provided by the mentioned answers 96. The Pidalion, as well as the Athenian Syntagma, contains 11 questions and the same number of answers, and this latter also contains interpretations of individual answers. In Kormchay (53 chapters) there are 20 questions and answers with a special title, completely different from other publications 97 . Canonical definitions: a) Basil the Great on constancy in goodness, extracted from Basil’s epistle to the Nicopolisians 98, b) John Chrysostom on the correction of criminals 99, c) on the time of the adoption of St. Mystery: α) one canonical answer of St. Anastasia 100, β) the canonical definition of Basil the Great, contained in his epistle πρός Καισαρίαν Πατρικία &#957 101 and γ) definitions on the same subject in the interpretations of John Chrysostom on the epistles of St. Paul to the Ephesians and Jews 102 ; d) about how a priest should behave in church - instructions from St. Basil the Great to priests 103. Having indicated the sources of all the rules, both basic and additional, we now proceed to present these rules with the corresponding interpretations. The word κανών itself means some straight tool used in cutting and grinding stone or wood. See Zonara's interpretation of Athanasius the Great's message on the holidays and M. Vlastar's preface to his Alphabetical Syntagma, in G. A. Ῥάλληκαί Μ. Ποτλη, Συνταγμα τών θεων καί ιερών κανόνων, IV, 81 and VI, 5 – 6. Cf. J. S. Suicerus, Thesaurus ecclesiasticus e patribus graecis concinnatus (Amstel. 1682, 2 vols.), P, 37. Ducange, Glossarium ad scriptores mediae et infimae graecitatis (Wratislaviae, 1891), I, 579. This expression (κανών) used in the church, on in ecclesiastical legal language means any decree that is issued by the underlying legislative authority and approved by the highest church authority for the organization of church affairs, so that nothing is disordered in church life, but everything in it is done correctly. From the first centuries of the history of Christianity among the Slavic peoples, the word κάνων was translated “rule”, and this is how it is used to this day. About this Nomocanon, see my work “On the canonical collection of the Orthodox Church” (Novi Sad, 1886), pp. 19–31. About this Athenian Syntagma, the brief title of which we have given above (p. 1, note 1) and which serves as the basis of this work, see my “Orthodox Church Law” (2nd Serbian ed., Mostar, 1902), pp. 210–210 [and in the Russian translation from the first Serbian edition of 1890 St. Petersburg, 1897, pp. 218 et seq.] and other authoritative judgments mentioned in the note about this important and strictly critical Greek edition. Wed. publication of the text of the rules until the VII century. Cathedral of Fr. Lauchert, Die Kanones der wichtigsten altkirchlichen Concilien nebst den Apostol. Kanones. Freiburg im Br., 1896. Much has been written about the Apostolic Canons, but we will recall here the most important thing that we had at hand. Rules of St. Apostles, holy ecumenical and local councils and St. father with interpretations. Moscow, 1876. I, 5–12. – “Christian Reading”, 1841. III, 455. – “Readings in the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment 1882. II, 141. – “Orthodox Review”, 1862. I, 446. – Archimandrite John (later Bishop of Smolensk). Experience of a course in church jurisprudence. St. Petersburg 1851. I, 122–136. – K. A. Nevolin, Complete Works. St. Petersburg, 1859. VI, 395. – N. K. Sokolov, Course of Church Law. Moscow, 1875, pp. 94–118. – I. S. Berdnikov, Course of Church Law, 1888. – N. S. Suvorov. Course of Church Law. Yaroslavl, 1889. I, 218–223. – M. A. Ostroumov, Essay on Orthodox Church Law. Kharkov, 1893. I, 170–181. – Practical Guide for Clergy. изложены и кратко истолкованы Ап. правила. – G. Beveregius, Σ . sive Pandectae canonum etc. Oxonii, 1672. T. II, Annotat. Pag. 1–8. – P. de Marca, De concordia sacerdotii et imperii. Paris, 1704. lib. III, cap. II. – Z. B. Van Espen, Commentarius in canones. Coloniae, 1755. pag. Krabbe, Ueber den Ursprung und Inhalt der Constitutionen. Hamburg, 1829. S. 74 et seq. - J. S. Drey, Neue Untersuchungen uber Constitutionen und Kanones der Apostel. Tubingen, 1832, S. 201 et seq. - J. W. Bickell, Geschichte des Kirchenrechts. Giessen, 1843. I, 71 et seq. – J. B. Mortreuil, Histoire du droit byzantin. Paris, 1843. I, 188 et seq. – F. Maassen, Geschichte der Quellen und Literatur des can. Rechts. Graz, 1870. I, 408 et seq. – J.B. Pitra, Juris eccles. graecorum historia et monumenta. Romae, 1864. Prolegom. XXVIII et seq. – S. J. Hefele, Conciliengeschichte. 2 Aufl. Freiburg, 1873. I, 793 et ​​seq. – S. Popovicii, Fontanele si Codicii dreptului bisericescu orthodoxu. Cernauti, 1866. pag. 39–42. - Πηδάλιον. ' Εν Ζακύνθ • ω , 1864. σ . κ᾿ – κβ ’. [Af. ed. 1887, σ. 11–13]. See below for interpretation of the relevant rules. Wed. rules of the Council of Antioch: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 20, 24 and 25 with the Apostolic rules: 7, 8, 13, 15, 1.6, 28, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 40 and 41. And what are these The apostolic canons are not compiled from the rules of the Council of Antioch, as they say, for example, Drey (see cit. cit., pp. 405 et seq.), J. W. Bickell (see cit. cit., pp. 79–82) and others, but just the opposite, as can be seen, among other things, from the 9th canon of Antioch, which determines that bishops should not do anything particularly important without prior agreement with their Metropolitan, as established by the ancient rule adopted from the fathers, and this rule is the 34th Apostolic Rule. See Archim. John, Experience of a course in church jurisprudence. I, 126 [cf. 399]. Euseb. Caerarensis, De vita Constantini, lib. III, c. 61 [Migne, s. g., t. 20]. Athanasii Alexander. Apologia contra Arianos. III, 15 [Migne, s, g., t. 25]. See Rules of Basil the Great: 3, 12, 51, etc., for example, in the Book of Rules. According to J. A. Mortreuil (cit. cit., I, 189), about half of the 3rd century. F. Turrianus (Pro canonibus Apostolorum, Florent. 1572) tried to prove that the Apostolic Canons were published in 45 (?) at the Apostolic Council in Jerusalem. J. Bickell (cit. cit., pp. 78 et seq., 230 et seq.) proves that these rules were compiled in the second half of the 4th century, seq. after the First Ecumenical Council. The same opinion is shared by Dr. Jos. Zhishman (Das Eherecht der orient. Kirche. Wien, 1864. S. 453). S. Joannis Domascenus, De fide orthodoxa. IV, 17 (ed. Migne, s.g., t. 94), and in the Venetian edition (1748, Ι, 284) the publisher Lequien in a note on the side says: Hi canones apocryphi sunt, nec in ecclesia universim recepti. This Lequien was a Dominican, trace. R.-Catholic, and this explains the note we cited. Wed. S. J. Hefele, Patrum Apostolicorum opera. Tubingen, 1855. Prolegom. pag. XXXV. -Dr. J. Nirschl, Lehrbuch der Patrologie. Mainz, 1881, I, 67 et seq. –Dr. J. Alzog, Handbuch der Patrologie. Freiburg, 1876. S. 23. – Archbishop. Filaret, Historian. teaching about the fathers of the church. St. Petersburg 1859, I, 9 et seq. See below the text of 85 of the Apostolic Canon. In Latin: Clementis epistolae duae et constitutiones vobis episcopis perme Clementem octo libris nuncupatae (Drey, op. cit., S. 235). Συνοδικόν sive Pandectae canonum. Annotat. pag. 40. However, later Beveregius abandoned his opinion about Clement of Alexandria (Codex canonum ecclesiae primitivae vindicatus et illustratus. Lond. 1678). Euseb. Caesar., Hist. eccles. III, 39; IV, 22 [Migne, s. g., t. 20]. See mention. cit., S. 238 et seq., 420 et seq. Wetzerund Welte, Kirchenlexicon. Freiburg, 1884, III, 1029–1032. See above p. 12, note. 4. About this collection, see my “Right. Tsrkveno Pravo” (1902), pp. 177–8 [Rus. lane with ed. 1890, pp. 184–5, cf. 195–6]. Printed in G. Voellus et H. Justellus, Bibliotheca juris can. veteris. Lutet. Paris, 1661. I, 112–116, also in Η efele, Conciliengeschichte. I, 800–816., and Drey, mention. cit., S. 223–230. Eg. Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, I, 794. Drey, inc. cit., S. 207 et seq. Bickell, mention. cit., S. 85. About these collections, see my “Ecclesiastical Law” pp. 176–177 [Russian. lane with ed. 1890, pp. 183–184). Among others, this idea was expressed in the West by the Parisian Archbishop Petrus de Marca in his learned work De concordia sacerdotii et imperii (Paris, 1704), noting that Dionysius should have included in his collection only 50 Apostolic rules, and left the last 35 rules, for among these last rules there were those that were contrary to the customs of the Roman Church, especially the 66th rule against fasting in Saturday, which was to be ingratus Romanis auribus (pag. 227). See Dionysius' letter to Pope Hormizdus about this collection in F. Α. Biener, De collectionibus canonum ecclesiae graecae. Berol., 1827. pag. 11–12. Bickell, mention. cit., S. 74. About this collection, see my “Right. tsrkveno pravo” (1902), pp. 182–184 [cf. rus. lane with ed. 1890, pp. 189–191]. Berardi made a note to this - Gratiani canones genuini ab apocryphis discreti. Taurin, 1752 (Bickell, op. cit., S. 241, Anm. 2). These false apostolic rules are found in the Athenian Syntagma, IV, 399-403. Pitra, mention. ed., 64 et seq. Beveregii, Συνοδικον sive Pandectae, II, after 188 pp. Wed. article by T. Barsov, On ecumenical councils in “Christ. Readings" 1869, II, 191 et seq. ' Αδέσποτον, περί τών εξ οικούμενικών Συνόδών. Af. Synth., 370. - J. Harduini, Conciliorum collectio, IV, 1486. ​​- G. Voelli et Η. Justelli, Bibliotheca juris canonici veteris. Lutet. Paris, 1656, II, 1161, – Af. Synth., I, 375. Harduini, IV, 1463. Voelli et Justelli, II, 1141. συνοπτική πε pi τών αγίων καί οίκουμενικών Συνόδων. Af. Synth., Ι, 389. Harduini, IV, 1491. V ο elli et Justelli, II, 1155. Συνοδικόν (Libellus synodicus). Harduini, IV, 1491. Voelli et Justelli, II, 1166. About this last collection, which talks about 153 events, starting from the Jerusalem council of 49 (?) and to the council of 877 (879), see Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, I, 84. On councils in general the best work [that has hitherto been published is "History of the Councils" by the late Rottenburg Biskup Dr. Hefele Conciliengeschichte. 2 Aufl. Bd. I-VII. Freiburg im Bg., 1873–1890. Bd. VIII and IX fortgesetzt von J. Hergenrother, Freiburg im Br., 1887–1890. Hefele is known for many of his writings and is considered one of the most learned theologians of the Roman Catholic Church. As a profound historian, during the Vatican Council he acted as a decisive opponent of papal infallibility, and then he published one work, which I have in a German translation under the following title: “Honorius und das sechste allgemeine Concil” (Tubingen, 1870), proving with an example from history how one pope can sin and was even condemned as a heretic by the council. At the same time, Penaki wrote another essay against Professor Penaki in the same sense. Upon returning from Rome to his diocese (1871), recognizing the accomplished fact, in one of his pastoral letters he tried to somehow reconcile the definition of the VI Ecumenical Council with the decision of the Vatican. It is also useful to compare about the ecumenical councils the book of Professor Dr. Michaud entitled: “Discussion sur les sept conciles oecumeniques” (Berne, 1878), which is dedicated to the “union of churches.” The work is excellent, only the author in it deviates from the “traditional point of view” and more readily adopts the “liberal point of view” (aut point de vue... liberal), as a result of which his work cannot always withstand strictly scientific criticism. But it must be remembered that the author is a Swiss Old Catholic and his work is a protest against the Vatican Council from the point of view of liberal German Roman Catholics, trace. From this side we should judge his mentioned research. About the first ecumenical council, see Acts of the Ecumenical Councils in Russian translation (Kazan, 1859–1873), prepared for publication based on the collections of conciliar acts Labbei et Cossartii (1661) and Harduini. Volume. I, 32–203. – Harduini, Concil. coll., Ι, 309 et seq. – Wed. Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, I, 252 et seq. On the dogmatic question of this council one should also compare Chr. W. F. Walch, Entwurf einer vollstandigen Historie der Ketzereien. XI. Th. Leipzig, 1762 – 1785, II, 385 et seq., and Dr. I. Schwane, Dogmengeschichte der paristischen Zeit. Munster, 1869. S. 108 et seq. For the Arabic translation, see Β e ν eregii, Pandectae, I, 686. Acts of the Ecumenical Councils, I, 229 et seq. – Η arduini, I, 897 et seq. Wed. Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, II, 1 et seq. – Walch, mention. op., III, 79 et seq. – Schwane, mention. cit., S. 217 et seq. Η efele, Conciliengeschichte, II, 12 et seq. – In Η arduini, I, 87 et seq. there is the Paraphrasis Arabica of Joseph of Egypt, the first six of our rules, combined into four. There is no seventh rule. Wed. Beveregii, Pandectae, I, 700. Acts of all. sob., I, 131 et seq. – Η arduini, I, 1271 et seq. – Wed. Η efele, Conciliengeschichte, II, 141 et seq. – Walch, mention. cit., V, 289 et seq. – Schwane, mention. cit., S. 409 et seq. Wed. Below is my interpretation of this message. See Maassen, op. cit., 108–109, 136–137, 472, 545, 949. – Β e ν eregii, Pandectae, II, Annot. in 1 can. Ephes. pag. 104. Acts of all. personal, III, 24 and to the end; IV, 5 and to the end. – Harduini, II. 1 et seq. Wed. Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, II, 313 et seq. – Walch, mention. op., VI, 3 et seq. – Schwane, mention. cit., S. 453 et seq. See this book for a detailed explanation of this rule. Harduini, III, 1712–1715 contains nine rules of the VI universe. cathedral, but are incorrectly attributed to this cathedral, as stated in the publisher's note relating here. They represent an extract from the rules of Bishop Theodulf (797) to subordinate priests, namely 16-22, 24 and 25 rights. (Harduini, IV, 915–917). Everything in Acts. personal (VI, 563–573) is a translation of an article from the publication Labbei against the ecumenical significance of this council; and the publishers brought it in to eliminate the suspicion of deliberate omission of anything. The same article is also found in Harduini (III, 1646–1851). It is necessary to compare what Beveregius (Pandectae can. II, Α p. 126) and Van Espen (cit. cit., 384-385) say in favor of the universal significance of the Trullian rules. From their own special point of view, Hergenrother (Photius, Ι, 216 ff.), J. Pitra (Juris eccles. gr. hist. mon., II, 4–5, 76–99) and Η efele (Conciliengeschichte, III, 328 ff.) also speak against the universal meaning of these rules. This latter considered it necessary to make the following note about the importance of these rules: “It is only by mistake that sometimes the Latins attribute the canons of this council to the VI Ecumenical Council.” Acts of all. sob., VII, 24 et seq. – Harduini, IV, 1 et seq. – Wed. Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, III, 66 et seq. – Walch, mention. op., X, 66 et seq. Acts of all. sob., VII, 670 et seq. - Harduini, IV, 512 et seq. Af. Synth., II, 647–712; III, 2–628, Pidalion, 343–542. Διά τούτο ήμε᾿ς οί σύν Κυρίψ όντες , καί ενότητα Κυρίου κρατούντες , καί κατά τήν άξίαν αυτού χορηγούμενοι τήν ίεράτειαν αύτού έν τή έκκλησία λειτουργούντες, όσα οί άντικείμενοι αύτώ, τουτέστι πολέμιοι, καί αντίχριστοι ποιούσιν, άποδοκιμάσαι καί άποποιήσαι καί άπορρίψαι, καί ώς βέβηλα εχειν όφείλομεν. Καί τοίς άπο πλάνης καί στρεβλότητος έρχομένοις έπί γνώσει τής άληθινής καί έκκλησιαστικής πίστεως , δούναι καθόλου θείας δυνάμεως μυστήριον, ένότητος τε, κ a ί πίστεως, καί άληθείας. Af. Synth., III, 5–6. The decree of this council was issued in the form of a letter sent ad Januarium et caeteros episcopos Numidas de baptisandis haereticis. Placed among the epistles of Cyprian under No. 70 in the edition of Min, s. l., t. 4, col. 408. Af. Synth., III, 19. - In the edition of Η arduini (I, 154 et seq.) there are three Carthaginian councils on the question of the baptism of heretics, including the one in question, and in a note on the side it is said that haec tria de baptismo concilia ecclesia non recipit. This rule of the Council of Carthage is not present in the original edition of the Nomocanon in the XIV titles. It is found in later editions, as well as in the edition of the Athenian Syntagma (I, 273), but, obviously, this is a later addition, which has long been noted by scientists. Along with many other things, cf. Heimbach, Griechisch-romisches Recht (Ersch u. Gruber, Allgem. Encyklop. Bd. 86, S. 378). The Athenian Syntagma cited the mentioned place of the Nomocanon in the XIV titles (I, 273) according to the Trebizond manuscript from which it was published, as well as the very rule of this Carthaginian council (III, 2-6) - for the sake of archaeological significance. Η arduini, I, 269. – Pitra, mention. ed., Annotat. I, 448. – Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, I, 219 et seq. Harduini, I, 281. – Pitra, I, 454. – Hefele, I, 240 et seq. Harduini, Ι, 529. – Pitra, I, 487. – Hefele, Ι, 777, et seq. Af. Synth., III, 98–100. – Pitra, I, 487–488. – Harduini, I, 529–531. Harduini, I, 589. – Pitra, Ι, 455. – Hefele, I, 502 et seq. Harduini, I, 778. – Pitra, I, 494. – Hefele, I. 746 et seq. Harduini, I, 635. – Pitra, Ι, 468. – Hefele, l, 533. Until recently, they thought that this council took place in 347, and were based primarily on Socrates, who in his church history (lib. II, p. 20) says that πατρός τών δύω Αύγούστων (see Migne, s.g., t. 67), and this πατήρ (Constantine the Great) died in 337, therefore the year is exactly 347; then - on Sozomen, who also in his church history (lib. III, p. 12) says that ?? Κωνσταντίνου τελευτής (see Μ igne, s.g., t. 67). This year is accepted, for example, in their histories: Α b, Fleury, Histoire eccles., I. 507; Α. Neander, Allgem. Geschichte der christl. Religion und Kirche, IV, 70; J. Gieseler, Lehrbuch der Kirchengeschiehte. 6 Bde. Bonn, 1844–55. B. I, Abth. II, S. 54; K. R. Hagenhach, Kirchengeschichte, 7 Bde. Leipzig, 1869–1872. I, 380; K. A. Hase, Kirchengeschichte. Leipzig, 1877. S. 162. W. Guettee, Histoire de Íeglise (III, 142, 504) takes the year 346, and Μ. Γεδεών, Πατριαρχικοί πίνακες (Κ – πολις, 1887, I, 118) even takes the year 348, when exactly the Serdic Council took place. The canonists followed the historians, so that the publishers of the Book of Rules, the official canonical collection, also accepted the year 347, as did the publishers of Pidalion; Moreover, these latter are trying to provide other evidence to prove that this council took place in 347. The well-known publisher of the collection of cathedrals J. Mansi expressed the idea, on the basis of the so-called discovered and published by the Verona scientist Maffei. historia acephala, that this cathedral could not have taken place in 347, but earlier 3 years, next. in 344. In modern times, among others, they have adopted the opinion of Μ ansi also Η efele in their Conciliengeschichte (indicated place), also card. Ρ itra in his work mentioned (I, 484). And I myself, in both the first and second editions of my “Collection,” stood for the year 344. Meanwhile, this is not entirely accurate, for from the edition of Cureton, The Festal Letters of Athanasius, discovered in an ancient Syriae version (London, 1848), which were translated and published by Professor Larsow in Berlin in 1852 under the title “Die Festbriefe des h. Athanasius, Bischofs von Alexandria,” and from the corresponding analysis of those Easter or holiday messages, it must now be concluded with sufficient confidence that the Council of Serdica could not have been later than 343. Former professor at Wirzburg and later cardinal of the Roman Church, Dr. J. Hergenrother in his Handbuch der allgemeinen Kirchengeschichte (2 Aufl. Freiburg im Br., 1879–1880. Bd. I, S. 247, cp. III, Supplement-Band, S. 103), referring to Hefele, chooses the middle path and says: “this great Council of Serdica took place in the autumn of 343 and lasted until next spring"; and on the basis of which the said cardinal thinks that the council lasted until the spring of 344, he does not give this at all. Author. Why "Serdika" and not "Sardika"? see Art. the late professor V.V. Bolotov in “Christ. Readings" 1891, May-June, No. 5–6, p. 511. p. In modern times, the authenticity of the Serdic rules is rejected. See two studies on this by J. Friedrich, Die Unachtheit der Canones von Sardica. Munchen, 1901, 1902. Harduini, I, 955. – Hefele, II, 65. Hardruini, I, 1195. - Cf. what Dr. says about this cathedral from a Roman Catholic point of view. J. Hergenrother, Photius, Patriarch von Konstantinopel. I-III Bde. Regensburg, 1867–1869. I, 419 et seq. Latin writers call this council false; in Harduini's edition of the conciliar acts it is called "Pseudosynodus Photiana" (T. VI, pars I, pag. 213), and Hefele (IV, 464 et seq.) calls it "Aftersynode des Photius" (i.e., the false council of Photius). Wed. more about this cathedral from the same Latin point of view Dr. J. Hergenrother, cit. cit., II, 379 et seq. About the authority of St. church fathers and the importance of their writings is the excellent work of Archimandrite. Porphyry in “Additions to the works of St. fathers Moscow, 1863, XXII, 1, 59. See the article about the same P itra, Jus eccles. Ι, 537 et seq. And the Protestant view of the authority and importance of St. fathers in church law, see Spittler, Geschichtle des can. Rechts. Halle, 1778. S. 56 et seq., then Bickell, Geschlichte des Kirchenrechts, I, 30 et seq. Archim. John, Experience of a course in church jurisprudence, II, 1–2. See Pitra (I, 566), on the basis of which a note relating to this was compiled in the Moscow edition of “Rules with Interpretations”, III, 106-107. Pitra, I, 551. – Cave, 101. – Filaret, I, 177. Pitra, I, 567, – Cave, 120. – Filaret, II, 43. – Alzog, 226. – Nirschl, II, 28. In the Synopsis there is only “Αλλο” (Af. Synt. IV, 397). Pitra, I, 576. – Cave, 152, – Filaret, II, 127. – Alzog. 261. – Nirschl, II, 149. Pitra, 1, 630. – Cave, 175, – Filaret, II, 5. In the “Pre-Notice” to the ed. 1787 Helmsman (l. 59) says that Timothy cannot be called a saint “because he was guilty of removing St. Gregory the Theologian from the patriarchate.” Regarding the total number of these replies, one should compare Pitra, I, 643, ann. 1. Cave 155. – Filaret, II, 158. – Alzog, 274. – Nirschl, II, 174. Cave, 159. – Filaret, II, 208. – Nirschl, 225. Cave, 153. – Filaret, II, 191. – Alzog, 285. – Nirschl, II, 199. Cave, 178. – Filaret, II, 7. Regarding Theophilus, in the aforementioned “Pre-Notice” to the Helmsman, it is noted that he cannot be called a saint, for he “expelled St. John Chrysostom.” In Pitra (I, 648), as well as in the Athenian Syntagma, “Expositio” is translated; y Beveregii (II, 374) also, and in Latin: “Narratio”. In the Omocanon in the XVI titles it is the same as in the Book of Rules (Af. Synt., I, 11). Cave, 251. – Filaret, III, 91. – Alzog, 324. – Nirschl, III, 6. Af. Synth., IV, 398, 405–407. The number of anathematisms in Kormchay is erroneous, since there should be 12, not 11. M. Ι. Γεδεών , Πατριαρχικοί πίνακες , είδήσεις ίστοριχάι βιογραφικάί περί τών Κωνσταντινουπόλεως (36–1884 έτ . 'Εν Κ – πόλει 1885–90), I, 194. – Cave, 288. – Filaret, III, 150. – Nirschl, III, 275. What we put in our “Collection” in the title of the message, following the Athenian Syntagma (IV, 368) “and ... the Pope,” is not in all the old collections (See Pitra, I, 183, and the note in the Athenian Syntagma, IV, 368). The publishers of Pidalion, on the contrary, prove that this is the case in all collections (p. 693, note 5). In Beveregius (II, 181), the second half of the epistle, from the words “especially excellent (κάλλιστα)” to the end, is, as it were, a commentary on Balsamon; meanwhile, this is a simple mistake, as Pitrá II, 181 and 185 well noted. M. Ι. Γεδεών, Πατριαρχικοί πίνακες; Ι, 265, – Cave, 422 – Filaret, III, 274. M. Ι. Γεδεών, Πατριαρχικοί πίνακες, Ι, 232, – Pitra, II, 222. – Cave 351. – Philaret, III, 177, – Nirschl, III, 501. The Greek title of this work by the Faster: Κανονικόν τού αγίου Ί ωαννου τού Νηστευτού, or also: Νομοκάνων σύν θεψ άγιωτάτον όσίου πατρός ήμών ᾿Ιωάννου τού Νηστευτού περί έξαγορεύσεω; διαφοράς καί περί άμαρτημάτων. On this Canon, Theodore, Archbishop of Canterbury, in the 7th century, compiled a book liber poenitentialis for the Western Church, which served as the basis for all later penitentials in the West. See Wasserschleben, Bussordnungen der abendlandischen Kirche. Halle, 1851. 8. 145 et seq. Found at the end of Vlastar's Alphabetical Syntagma; at least, this is what those who have seen various handwritten copies of this Syntagma say (see the preface to volume VI of the Athenian Syntagma, also Mortreuil, Histoire du droit byzantin. III, 461), although this is not in the edition of Beveregius, nor in the Athenian Syntagma, where the Vlastareva Syntagma was printed. In the Pidalion it stands under the following title: Οί λέ κανόνες ᾿Ιωάννου τού Νηστευτού, and at the end 18 other rules are added from one manuscript that was in the hands of the publishers of the Pidalion. In the Athenian Syntagma the following title: Ἐκ τού κανονικόν τού άγίου Ί ωαννου τού Νηστευτού and it immediately says where it was taken from: ' Ημειψε πρός σύνοψιν Ματθαίος ταύτα (IV, 432). – In the edition of Pitra (Juris eccles. graecorum hist. et mon. II, 226) it is printed: άμαρτήματος ᾿Ιωάννου πατριάρχού , together with Latin translation. M. Ι. Γεδεών, Πατριαρχικοί πίνακες. 1, 267. – Ρ itra II, 314. – Cave. 434. – Filaret, III, 377. Κεφάλαια περί διαφόρων ύποθέσεων (there are ten of them). Pitra, II, 320–327. Ἐχ τού Τυπικού. 87 rules. Ibid., 327–336. Ἐχ τών εκκλησιαστικών αύτού συντάξεων καί τών σύν αύτψάγίων πατέρων. Pitra (II, 336–348) lists 140 rules, and together with the rules from the type of Nikephoros there are 227 rules. These latter are entitled in the Athenian Syntagma (IV, 431 γ᾿ – 431 i): ' Επιστολή τού έν άγίοις πατρός ήμων Νικηφόρου πατριάρχου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως τού Όμολογητού. Compared to the Athenian Syntagma, there is no in the Helmsman: 4; 8, 10, 12, 18, 18, 20, 23, 25, 30–34 and 38 rules. M. Ι, Γεδεών, Πατριαρχικοί πίνακες, Ι, 338. – Cave, 538. In Af. The syntagma of the title of these questions and answers is as follows: ' αποκρίσεις έπ᾿ αύτών γενόμεναι παρά τής έν Κωνσταντινουπόλει αγίας συνόδου, πατριάρχου Νικολάου, βασιλεύοντος τού άοιδίμου εφ᾿ αίς καί έρμηνείαι έξεφωνήθησαν παρά τού πατριάρχου ᾿Αντιοχείας Θεοδώρου τού Βάλσαμών. “γραμματικός” is added to the name of this patriarch (IV, 417). “The chapters of the church, and the correct questions, and the answers of the holy council, which took place in the days of the Most Reverend and Ecumenical Patriarch Nicholas of Constantine, the questioning of John the Mnich and the Silent One, who was in the Holy Mountain, and the monk who was with him.” This appears to be a translation of what Cave states (p. 538): άπόκρισιν ζητηθέντα παρά τού μονάχού ᾿Ιωάννου τού ήσυχαστού τού έν τψ άγίψ όρεί , τψ μακαρίω πατριάρχη Κωνσταντινουπόλεως κύρψ Νικολάψ. If this is so, as I believe, 70 in the indicated chapters the answers contained in the Pidalion and the Athenian Syntagma were repeated, since in the Pilot questions 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 16, 17 and 20 correspond fully to those mentioned in these two collections. U M . Ι. Γεδεών , Κανονικάί Διατάξεις τών άγιωτάτων πατριαρχών Κωνσταντινουπόλεως (Κωνσταντίνουπ. 1888–1889, Ι, 9–16) 17 questions and answers. Af. Synth., IV, 386: εύχαρίστως φέρειν τούς πειρασμούς. M. Ι. Γεδεών, Πατρ. πίνακες, 141. – Pitra, II, 168. He occupied the see of Constantinople from 398 to 404. In Af. Syntagme (IV, 387) is entitled: Κεφάλαιον κανονικόν, and in Pitra (II, 169): Παραγγελλία. Af. Synth., IV, 388: Τού αγίου ᾿Αναστασίου, ερωτηθέντος, πότερον καλόν, το συνεχώς κοινωνείν, ή εκ διαλειμμάτων; A πόκρισις. Wed. Cave, 346, and also "Anastasiana" y Pitra, II, 238 et seq. This is Vasily's message. wrote in 372. Af. Synth., IV, 389. Ρ itra also notes the following rules of John Chrysostom, which are contained in his numerous writings: 1) On the forgiveness of sins (είς τόν ν ψαλμόν), 2) on confession (έκ τού κατά Ί ωάννην), 3) On the that worldly people do not dare to insult or judge a priest (from the interpretation of the Gospel of John), 4) About Christ and the priest (from the interpretation of the Epistle to Thessalonians), 5) about priests and their qualities and duties (from the interpretation of the Epistle to Timothy, 6) about priests (from the words about the priesthood), 7) about the same (from the same words), 8) 143 rules by which punishments are prescribed for various crimes and 9) Στίχοι παραινβτικοί. Mention cit., 168–169. Af. Synth., IV, 391–392: In the Helmsman (chap. 24) there is the following title: “To the presbyter about the divine service.” You might be interested in: